Henry "Scoop" Jackson POTUS?

To be honest, I've always had a bit of a soft-spot for "Scoop" Jackson, and for a while in my politically formative years I considered myself a Hawkish Democrat much along the lines of the Senator from Washington. I've always been intrigued about what would have happened if Jackson instead of Carter had been elected in 1976. Though some have attempted timelines on the subject, none have gotten very far.

Recently I finished Robert Kaufman's autobiography on Jackson "Henry M. Jackson: A Life in Politics". It's a fairly good read, the writing style wasn't amazing but it was definitely informative. Based on the information I've gathered here's how I think that Jackson could make it to the White House.

Now, Jackson made two attempts at the presidency, once in 1972 and once in 1976. Though I guess it's plausible that with a POD far back enough, Jackson could have won in 1972, it would be more difficult than if he were to win in 1976, and that's saying something. In OTL Jackson faced a number of obstacles that prevented his attempt to gain the Democratic nomination in 1976 from succeeding. They are (in no particular order):

  1. Failure to acknowledge the "New Left" as his main opposition: Coming into 1976 Jackson was convinced that in order to win he needed to be the candidate who could rally northern democrats to defeat George Wallace. Over the course of the 1970's he was increasingly unaware of the shifts within his own party to the left, leaving him ideologically isolated.
  2. Lack of oratory charisma: Apparently Scoop was quite somebody to meet in person or to talk to one on one. Attentive, charming, persuasive, he didn't win elections in Washington by huge margins for nothing. Unfortunately, this charisma did not translate at all into public life. Scoop became known as a dull, droning speaker who would often literally put listeners to sleep, and his debate performances were similar. Furthermore he never seemed to relish the feeling of electrifying a crowd that so many great public speakers yearned for. Though his advisors tried to get him to change, Scoop's stubborn nature prevented any positive gains in this area.
  3. A lack of connection with the youth: As a man who married later than his peers, Scoop missed in large part the social changes of the 1960's and as previously mentioned failed to connect with the changing nature of the country's youth their attitudes and culture.
  4. A stubborn adherence to New Deal Ideals: Jackson was a firm believer in "big government" and regulations. Due largely to the fact that he had no experience in the private sector, inasmuch as the American right loved Jackson's foreign policy ideas, they abhorred his economic policies. The man loved wage and price controls and advocated for them as a means to solve America's economic woes. This adherence would not gain him many friends during his attempt to gain the democratic nomination.
  5. Status as a government "Insider": Post-Watergate was really the time of the outsider in American politics. Jackson having served first as a congressman, then as a prominent senator from the 1940's uninterrupted to 1976 was the consummate insider, not a plus during the primaries.
  6. Unwillingness to compromise on foreign policy: Jackson strongly supported the exertion of American power abroad, the fight against communism, and most notably the Vietnam War all of which made him an anathema to the Democratic party in 1976.
  7. Lack of unified labour support: In 1976 Jackson was heavily reliant on the support of Big Labour. Big Labour on the other hand was less than enthusiastic and still hoped that Humphrey would run well into the 1976 Democratic primaries. When Humphrey finally declared that he wasn’t going to run it was too late for Jackson’s flagging campaign.
  8. Failure to understand the new primary system: Jackson was a politician who would have done far better in a more traditional pre-1968 Democratic Convention. He failed to grasp how important the primaries had become, as well as the concept of gaining momentum in the primaries. As a result Jackson’s 1976 campaign adopted a poorly thought out strategy that resulted in his eventual loss to Jimmy Carter.

Now, all of these problems make it difficult to have Jackson win the Democratic nomination in 1976. That being said, difficult is not impossible. However we’re going to need a POD much earlier than the 1976 primary season. By that time Jackson is too unprepared and the party has drifted too far left for Jackson to plausibly win the Democratic nomination.

My proposed Point of Diversion occurs on May 15th 1972. Arthur Bremer’s OTL assassination attempt on George Wallace which left him paralyzed from the waist down is successful in TTL. Wallace’s death causes a minor shakeup in the Democratic primaries, voters pledged to Wallace now are forced to reconsider their options. Given Jackson’s ideological proximity to Wallace on some issues I could see Jackson picking up a number of Wallace’s delegates. Perhaps this is enough for Jackson to resume campaigning in an attempt to gain a better position in the upcoming convention. Humphrey probably wins in Maryland and Michigan and a lack of Wallace in California might give him the edge over McGovern in which case Humphrey could win the Democratic nomination. Regardless of whether McGovern or Humphrey wins, I think in 1972 the Democratic party is a longshot to win unless Watergate is revealed earlier. For the sake of the scenario, let’s say that the defection of some of Wallace’s delegates to Jackson convinces him to resume active campaigning during the primaries. Jackson’s renewed participation splits the anti-McGovern faction and prevents it from unifying behind Humphrey which results in McGovern winning the Democratic nomination and losing to Nixon in a landslide in 1972.

Wallace’s death in TTL causes Jackson to rethink his place within the party. Without the boogeyman of Wallace to focus on, Jackson becomes more aware of the shifting nature of the Democratic Party. As he sets his sights on 1976 he realizes that it is the “New Left” who are his ideological opponents. In order to beat them Jackson valiantly attempts to galvanize the right wing of the Democratic party, and more importantly, Jackson realizes that he needs to campaign more aggressively and in a more modern fashion in order to keep the “New Left” from gaining the nomination in 1976. To this end Jackson agrees to take speaking lessons (something suggested to him in OTL) and other pointers from various people many of whom are in Hollywood. Jackson also begins fundraising and campaigning throughout the country, drawing considerable support from Jewish Americans (due to his fervent support of Israel) and the South in the absence of Wallace. Jackson also strives mightily to mitigate the leftward shift of the Democratic Party in the 1970’s (something he ignored in OTL). To his credit Jackson and his supporters able to reduce the massive shift that occurred in OTL during the period.

Entering the 1976 Democratic primaries, Henry Jackson is clearly the man to beat. Having raised a mountain of money, and having the most name recognition Jackson campaigns aggressively in the early primaries and does surprisingly well due to the splitting of the leftwing vote among numerous candidates. Jackson is further aided by Humphrey announcing that he will not run in 1975 before the first primaries have begun. This consolidates Labour behind Jackson’s campaign. For the sake of the scenario, Carter’s primary campaign also goes worse in TTL and his more liberal side is revealed, causing many southern democrats to defect to Jackson. These factors all combine to give Jackson a narrow victory in the 1976 Democratic primaries and subsequently the convention.

Thoughts? Is this a plausible series of events?

From there, I don’t think it’s too hard to have Jackson defeat Ford. As a VP Candidate I was thinking Lloyd Bentsen though others are certainly a possibility. Any other suggestions?

Jackson’s ATL cabinet I’m drawing a complete blank on. Daniel Patrick Moynihan will probably feature prominently but as for anyone else I’m stumped...I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of the more knowledgeable members of the board on who he’d pick for various cabinet posts.

As for his time in the White House, here are some initial thoughts, let me know what you think.

  • No decrease in military spending. (Obviously, Jackson castigated Carter for his actions in this regard) In fact you’ll probably see a marked increase
  • Better relations with Congress, meaning that perhaps Jackson gets more stuff done than Carter.
  • Massive expansion of government power and size, perhaps an attempt to introduce a Keynesian stimulus program “Second New Deal”.
  • A major energy independence bill will be passed fairly early on, probably as a part of his 100 days program, perhaps being included in his “Second New Deal”.
  • There’s probably going to be an attempt to introduce wage and price controls somewhere along the line. Not sure how successful they’d be or if they’d even get passed.
  • Jackson’s heart condition which killed him in OTL is discovered earlier than OTL.
  • The US is generally more hawkish abroad. This would most definitely change the situation in Iran, as well as scuttle the SALT talks. Tensions between the USSR and USA would probably rise as a result.
  • Jackson’s wholehearted support of Israel probably scuttles TTL’s Camp David accords.
  • Negotiations surrounding the Panama Canal might be different.

Let’s assume for the sake of the scenario, Jackson does not interfere directly with the Iranian revolution (though that’s definitely a possibility). The Iranian Hostage Crisis occurs but in TTL Jackson responds much better, the fact that the American Hostages knew what they were getting into will be stressed and Jackson will adopt a much braver face. IIRC Operation Eagle Claw was severely hampered by Carter’s micromanaging of the situation. I doubt Jackson would do the same due to his respect for the military. However I’m not very well versed in the situation. Perhaps in TTL Eagle Claw is a success?

Despite a better handling of the Iranian situation, the flagging US economy and the growing divide between Jackson and the rest of his party spells disaster heading into the 1980 Election. Arguably Jackson’s domestic policies have resulted in the US economy being worse off in TTL. This coupled with his hawkish policies abroad might lead to a serious challenge from within the Democratic party in TTL. Another possibility is that the stress of the job aggravates Jackson’s health condition causing either death or his decision not to run for a second term.

Given the divide within the Democratic Party and the state of the US economy, regardless of what happens to Jackson I think Reagan or whoever the GOP nominates is positioned well to retake the White House in 1980.

Thoughts?
 
This sends the GOP in a more firmly libertarian (by U.S. standards) direction. Jackson still has a decent shot at losing reelection and/or seeing much of his domestic agenda stymied, but he is somewhat well regarded years after leaving office. Most consequential, however, is that this will keep neoconservatives Democratic.
 
Jackson with a better knowledge of congress would have gotten a better energy program through and we would all be better off. One problem might have been a dovish third party.
 
Jackson. One of my favorite Democrats. Too bad he never got to be President. I'd love to see a TL about this. It'd not only be cool to see his Presidency, but the effects beyond his Presidency. I can see another one of my favorite Democrats who was previously mentioned, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as President in 1988 or 1992, and Joe Lieberman some time in the 2000's. For the Republicans, they'd probably end up with Mark Hatfield and Chuck Hagel. It'd be cool to see.
 
Addressing the OP, if Jackson (or for that matter Mo Udall) wanted to win in 1976, all they had to due was go after Iowa and New Hampshire. That's probably an overstatement, but the basic point is true. Carter walked into New Hampshire with the momentum of his win in Iowa, and took the momentum from New Hampshire into the following contests and so on and so forth. Basically, Carter needed a whole lot of luck and momentum to win. Therefore only a few things would need to happen. If Humphrey dies before '76, then labor is going to throw him their backing as the best alternative to Wallace (who was seen as the biggest threat that year). Also, you need Jackson, but not Mo Udall, to run in Iowa. If that happens, he could very well win their and establish the kind of momentum to win the race.
 
Addressing the OP, if Jackson (or for that matter Mo Udall) wanted to win in 1976, all they had to due was go after Iowa and New Hampshire. That's probably an overstatement, but the basic point is true. Carter walked into New Hampshire with the momentum of his win in Iowa, and took the momentum from New Hampshire into the following contests and so on and so forth. Basically, Carter needed a whole lot of luck and momentum to win. Therefore only a few things would need to happen. If Humphrey dies before '76, then labor is going to throw him their backing as the best alternative to Wallace (who was seen as the biggest threat that year). Also, you need Jackson, but not Mo Udall, to run in Iowa. If that happens, he could very well win their and establish the kind of momentum to win the race.

In Jackson's case, New Hampshire he definitely should have run in, Iowa less so. The Iowan Democratic electorate was too dovish to go for a hawk like Jackson. Then again in TTL he's more articulate and has better labour backing so he could make a go of it.
 
In Any Case, It Comes Out "Reagan"

I was fascinated by this alternate history line focusing on Scoop Jackson, and especially by the fact that your AHL led--in any case!--to a Reagan presidency. This corresponded eerily to an AHL I fantasized about some time ago, and I was so jarred by the coincidence that I even signed up to your website so I could comment. I was daydreaming one day, wondering how things might have gone had Dewey really beaten Truman in '48 (and not just in the headlines!). Giving Dewey the benefit of the doubt, that he wins a second term in '52, then, come '56, the country is very likely ready to do a pendulum swing to the Dems again, and now it gets interesting. In this timeline, Eisenhower's ship has sailed - this timeline didn't "clock" right for him to take a stab at running. He's just too old in '56 for a first-term run. Lo and behold, real history's 2-time loser Stevenson is blessed by this alternate timeline with a truly ripe moment, and he takes the presidency in '56. Again, let's give him eight years. So now it's '64, and we certainly know who's notgoing to become president, for the first time, on nothing but his own"coattails", and that's LBJ. He's off the radar screen now. The time is now ripe for JFK to run, but of course in this scenario he can't catch that advantageous pendulum swing; now he's trying to follow up a two-term Dem president with yet another Dem president... and it doesn't happen. He loses to... Nixon, who wins on a mixture of "southern strategy" (because President Stevenson alienated the South with his civil rights policies) and a no-nonsense stance on Vietnam (though what "no-nonsense" really means is never quite clarified to the electorate, but in any case it sounds better than what Stevenson has been doing, which is "dithering", not fighting to win, not planning to get out). Four years later, Vietnam is a catastrophe and it costs Nixon his presidency. In 1968 JFK comes back to win. Let's give him eight years. So now it's 76. This timeline has stacked the cards against RFK - the improbability of electing the incumbent president's brother to succeed him, as well as the difficulty of keeping the same party in the White House for two successive presidencies. By '76 JFK has managed, for better or worse, to pull us out of Vietnam, but probably for worse, and the whole mess has wound up precisely as it really did in our timeline. The pendulum effect (it's the GOP's "turn" at the White House), together with the embarrassment of "losing" Vietnam, together with a clever GOP campaign persuasively putting the entire Vietnam mess, from Day One, squarely in the lap of the Democratic party, starting with President Stevenson and disintegrating into total defeat under JFK, together with a new, bold call for conservative values and rejection of inexorable "octupus" government with its tentacles reaching into every area of our lives, all conspire to make,yep, Ronald Reagan president in 1976. Who was the Dem party nominee that Reagan beat in '76? Scoop Jackson.
There is something eerily inevitable about the Reagan presidency in America's history, whether on real or alternate timelines. Same could be said about JFK. The rest of the presidents seem to be the lucky "victims" of fortuitous moments.
Addendum: In this timeline, RFK's most viable chance at the White House turns up in 1984, 16 years after his brother's victory. And his GOP opponent is vice-president Jack Kemp. No guesses here on who wins that one.
 
I was fascinated by this alternate history line focusing on Scoop Jackson, and especially by the fact that your AHL led--in any case!--to a Reagan presidency. This corresponded eerily to an AHL I fantasized about some time ago, and I was so jarred by the coincidence that I even signed up to your website so I could comment. I was daydreaming one day, wondering how things might have gone had Dewey really beaten Truman in '48 (and not just in the headlines!). Giving Dewey the benefit of the doubt, that he wins a second term in '52, then, come '56, the country is very likely ready to do a pendulum swing to the Dems again, and now it gets interesting. In this timeline, Eisenhower's ship has sailed - this timeline didn't "clock" right for him to take a stab at running. He's just too old in '56 for a first-term run. Lo and behold, real history's 2-time loser Stevenson is blessed by this alternate timeline with a truly ripe moment, and he takes the presidency in '56. Again, let's give him eight years. So now it's '64, and we certainly know who's notgoing to become president, for the first time, on nothing but his own"coattails", and that's LBJ. He's off the radar screen now. The time is now ripe for JFK to run, but of course in this scenario he can't catch that advantageous pendulum swing; now he's trying to follow up a two-term Dem president with yet another Dem president... and it doesn't happen. He loses to... Nixon, who wins on a mixture of "southern strategy" (because President Stevenson alienated the South with his civil rights policies) and a no-nonsense stance on Vietnam (though what "no-nonsense" really means is never quite clarified to the electorate, but in any case it sounds better than what Stevenson has been doing, which is "dithering", not fighting to win, not planning to get out). Four years later, Vietnam is a catastrophe and it costs Nixon his presidency. In 1968 JFK comes back to win. Let's give him eight years. So now it's 76. This timeline has stacked the cards against RFK - the improbability of electing the incumbent president's brother to succeed him, as well as the difficulty of keeping the same party in the White House for two successive presidencies. By '76 JFK has managed, for better or worse, to pull us out of Vietnam, but probably for worse, and the whole mess has wound up precisely as it really did in our timeline. The pendulum effect (it's the GOP's "turn" at the White House), together with the embarrassment of "losing" Vietnam, together with a clever GOP campaign persuasively putting the entire Vietnam mess, from Day One, squarely in the lap of the Democratic party, starting with President Stevenson and disintegrating into total defeat under JFK, together with a new, bold call for conservative values and rejection of inexorable "octupus" government with its tentacles reaching into every area of our lives, all conspire to make,yep, Ronald Reagan president in 1976. Who was the Dem party nominee that Reagan beat in '76? Scoop Jackson.
There is something eerily inevitable about the Reagan presidency in America's history, whether on real or alternate timelines. Same could be said about JFK. The rest of the presidents seem to be the lucky "victims" of fortuitous moments.
Addendum: In this timeline, RFK's most viable chance at the White House turns up in 1984, 16 years after his brother's victory. And his GOP opponent is vice-president Jack Kemp. No guesses here on who wins that one.

I think a lot of this is very interesting, but IMO you're applying the pendulum effect (and the "incumbent wins" default) a little too rigidly.

Republicans controlled the White House for 3 terms ('80-'92) and only lost in '92 because of a very strange 3-way election; it wouldn't have taken much for George H.W. Bush to win a (narrow) re-election. Similarly, Al Gore won the popular vote (and almost won -- or did win, depending on your view of these things -- the electoral college) in 2000, which would have been three consecutive terms of a Democratic presidency.

I think the most interesting departure you suggest begins in '56. Perhaps Eisenhower -- who IOTL was recruited by both parties -- is Stevenson's running mate? He'll certainly want to run on his own in '64, and he might be the kind of calm, reassuring, no-nonsense candidate that could appeal to swing voters who are uneasy about civil unrest but unwilling to throw in with bigots and racists.

Hard to imagine a two-term Dewey Presidency followed by two terms of Adlai Stevenson would get us to anything like TTL's Vietnam....
 
Top